They've seen this coming for a few years now. The problem is that there genuinely isn't anything left that can serve as a substitute that isn't also toxic to humans. You could use silver ions like they do in wound dressings if you're okay with inconclusive stuides, looking like a Smurf and potential renal failure, and copper works really well as a surface antibacterial but you can't exactly introduce that into the body in quantities that wouldn't also be cytotoxic.

We need another seriously major leap in molecular biology to get past this.

Shedim:They've seen this coming for a few years now. The problem is that there genuinely isn't anything left that can serve as a substitute that isn't also toxic to humans. You could use silver ions like they do in wound dressings if you're okay with inconclusive stuides, looking like a Smurf and potential renal failure, and copper works really well as a surface antibacterial but you can't exactly introduce that into the body in quantities that wouldn't also be cytotoxic.

We need another seriously major leap in molecular biology to get past this.

Shedim:They've seen this coming for a few years now. The problem is that there genuinely isn't anything left that can serve as a substitute that isn't also toxic to humans. You could use silver ions like they do in wound dressings if you're okay with inconclusive stuides, looking like a Smurf and potential renal failure, and copper works really well as a surface antibacterial but you can't exactly introduce that into the body in quantities that wouldn't also be cytotoxic.

We need another seriously major leap in molecular biology to get past this.

It would also help if:

1. Antibiotics were restricted to more serious infections that would not clear up on their own.2. People always completed their course of antibiotics.3. Doctors, particularly in some other countries, refused to give patients antibiotics for non-bacterial infections because they are worried their patients will bad mouth then to other people for not doing enough to cure them of their sniffles.

Target Builder:Shedim: They've seen this coming for a few years now. The problem is that there genuinely isn't anything left that can serve as a substitute that isn't also toxic to humans. You could use silver ions like they do in wound dressings if you're okay with inconclusive stuides, looking like a Smurf and potential renal failure, and copper works really well as a surface antibacterial but you can't exactly introduce that into the body in quantities that wouldn't also be cytotoxic.

We need another seriously major leap in molecular biology to get past this.

It would also help if:

1. Antibiotics were restricted to more serious infections that would not clear up on their own.2. People always completed their course of antibiotics.3. Doctors, particularly in some other countries, refused to give patients antibiotics for non-bacterial infections because they are worried their patients will bad mouth then to other people for not doing enough to cure them of their sniffles.

Shedim:They've seen this coming for a few years now. The problem is that there genuinely isn't anything left that can serve as a substitute that isn't also toxic to humans. You could use silver ions like they do in wound dressings if you're okay with inconclusive stuides, looking like a Smurf and potential renal failure, and copper works really well as a surface antibacterial but you can't exactly introduce that into the body in quantities that wouldn't also be cytotoxic.

We need another seriously major leap in molecular biology to get past this.

I have a friend whose scientific specialty is finding novel ways to kill MRSA. He spent the past year unemployed, because there isn't any interest in funding research into new ways to fight MRSA. I mean, when people talk about wanting to fund scientists whose research is relevant and has a direct impact on people's health, it's tough to think of a better example. The level of complacency is incomprehensible.

But, but, but.....the governments tightly control who can prescribe antibiotics. They've placed laws on them so that a regular, intelligent, person who is sick *can't* decide if they should get antibiotics or not. All this for the greater good.

And now you are telling me that the same doctor's who are supposed to be smart enough to know better, have completely failed in their task? That they will happily give people a prescription, because they know that people want them? Wonderful.

If an antibiotic was removed from service worldwide for, say, 10 years, would bacteria lose their resistance to it? I'm wondering because that would be tens of thousands of generations without exposure to the antibiotic.

Srinivasan added that pharmaceutical companies are at least partially to blame for this problem, saying that they have neglected the development of new and more sophisticated antibiotics that could keep up with bacterial resistance because 'there's not much money to be made' in this field.

It seems to me more and more that the purpose of humanity in the US is to make money for companies. If you are not profitable - be you worker, patient, or Congressperson - then if it's at all possible, you will be culled from the herd and left to die in the wilderness.

If an antibiotic was removed from service worldwide for, say, 10 years, would bacteria lose their resistance to it? I'm wondering because that would be tens of thousands of generations without exposure to the antibiotic.

My guess, and I am not an expert, is that the non-resistant bacteria would reproduce, as would the resistant ones, and it would be a mixture of both, so it would probably do some good.

If an antibiotic was removed from service worldwide for, say, 10 years, would bacteria lose their resistance to it? I'm wondering because that would be tens of thousands of generations without exposure to the antibiotic.

It depends on the antibiotic (or other antibiotics being used) and the effect carrying a resistance allele has on the bug, but generally yes. Resistance usually evolves by changing an ion channel, or the cell walls / membranes, or how things are sequestered within the cell, usually at a cost to the organism absent antibiotics.

I like how he makes it sound like a problem we caused ourselves, like we should have never used antibiotics in the first place, that it was a mistake to save those lives and improve the quality of life for others.

If an antibiotic was removed from service worldwide for, say, 10 years, would bacteria lose their resistance to it? I'm wondering because that would be tens of thousands of generations without exposure to the antibiotic.

Yes it would work but the bug would adapt faster on the second go around than the first because there would probably be some latent resistant genes that survived in some colonies. That said I think they are giving that idea a go.

I have a friend whose scientific specialty is finding novel ways to kill MRSA. He spent the past year unemployed, because there isn't any interest in funding research into new ways to fight MRSA. I mean, when people talk about wanting to fund scientists whose research is relevant and has a direct impact on people's health, it's tough to think of a better example. The level of complacency is incomprehensible.

It's a shiat time to be looking for work in either government or government-supported research right now. The sequester has caused a near freeze on hiring and destroyed grant approval rates.Your friend might just be feeling the effects of that.The NIH has most assuredly taken an interest in treatments and responses to antibiotic resistant infections, but trying to get hired in that field right now is going to suck no matter what.

omeganuepsilon:I like how he makes it sound like a problem we caused ourselves, like we should have never used antibiotics in the first place, that it was a mistake to save those lives and improve the quality of life for others.

Comes off as someone who really shouldn't be in medicine.

Fact: If someone tells you not to stick your hand in the fire because it will burn you, it is because he hates fire and thinks that it was a mistake to ever start eating cooked food.

If an antibiotic was removed from service worldwide for, say, 10 years, would bacteria lose their resistance to it? I'm wondering because that would be tens of thousands of generations without exposure to the antibiotic.

Yes it would work but the bug would adapt faster on the second go around than the first because there would probably be some latent resistant genes that survived in some colonies. That said I think they are giving that idea a go.

In the past at least, doctors have periodically changed the recommended antibiotic to use for just that reason. But everybody has to do it for it to work.

Evolutionarily, the resistance elements have a fitness cost that is overcome by the selective advantage of surviving the antibiotic, so the resistant strains will eventually lose the plasmid if the advantage is taken away. This could work, but it would take a while.

If an antibiotic was removed from service worldwide for, say, 10 years, would bacteria lose their resistance to it? I'm wondering because that would be tens of thousands of generations without exposure to the antibiotic.

No medical professional here, but Norway has seen great success with this approach.

It would certainly cause discomfort, and we'd have to stop putting antibiotics in everything and animal feed. Which means it's never going to happen and countless pointless deaths will occur, because we're idiots.

Shedim:They've seen this coming for a few years now. The problem is that there genuinely isn't anything left that can serve as a substitute that isn't also toxic to humans. You could use silver ions like they do in wound dressings if you're okay with inconclusive stuides, looking like a Smurf and potential renal failure, and copper works really well as a surface antibacterial but you can't exactly introduce that into the body in quantities that wouldn't also be cytotoxic.

We need another seriously major leap in molecular biology to get past this.

There are other ways to skin that cat. I work closely with a team that is making some novel tryptophan biosynthetic pathway inhibitors that are performing really well in assays so far. Since humans don't produce their own tryptophan, it shouldn't cause issues. Obviously Murphy's law might throw a wrench into that idea, but at this point it looks good.

It's amazing that in this country (the US) it is harder for a doctor to prescribe even mild opiates, yet they hand out powerful modern antibiotics like they were Halloween candy. I mean, I know that's because we all have to be protected from anything 'narcotic' even when it's for legit medial reasons. The fact that antibiotics have relatively few side effects seems to have created a culture of "toss some it, it can't hurt" so we start using them as prophylactics for everything, down to and including just shooting them into our meat "just in case".

So yeah as some people unthread have pointed out, we've used this trick so often that nature is getting wise to us. Phages are cool, and at least they attack from a different direction as it were, but only the Soviets ever did serious work on them, and from what I understand they have to be specifically tailored to certain infections. Our only other options though seem to be limited. Better sanitation everywhere does help. There is no such thing as a bacteria resistant to alcohol or bleach. Otherwise it's back to the riskier, crazier treatments. Pretty soon we'll have to start giving people malaria to treat syphilis again.

/yes, people did that//the malarial fever killed the syphilis//then quinine could treat the malaria///pass me a gin and tonic?

I have a friend whose scientific specialty is finding novel ways to kill MRSA. He spent the past year unemployed, because there isn't any interest in funding research into new ways to fight MRSA. I mean, when people talk about wanting to fund scientists whose research is relevant and has a direct impact on people's health, it's tough to think of a better example. The level of complacency is incomprehensible.

Can't we just equip the members of Obama death panels with flamethrowers so they can burn away people infected with superbugs? Or people suspected of carrying superbugs. I think I saw Ted Cruz sneezing the other day.

HindiDiscoMonster:omeganuepsilon: I like how he makes it sound like a problem we caused ourselves, like we should have never used antibiotics in the first place, that it was a mistake to save those lives and improve the quality of life for others.

Comes off as someone who really shouldn't be in medicine.

not every sickness needs an antibiotic.only germophobes think that is the case.

Many do. Your point? It's not a case where some cases contribute to resistance, they ALL do.

thurstonxhowell:omeganuepsilon: I like how he makes it sound like a problem we caused ourselves, like we should have never used antibiotics in the first place, that it was a mistake to save those lives and improve the quality of life for others.

Comes off as someone who really shouldn't be in medicine.

Fact: If someone tells you not to stick your hand in the fire because it will burn you, it is because he hates fire and thinks that it was a mistake to ever start eating cooked food.

non sequitur/and borderline lunacySee above. Raising resistances by use of antibiotics is inevitable, hell, it's inevitable without artificiial antibiotics, we produce them ourselves.

Yes, we could try to focus on shifting their use to more needful cases, lower the potential impact, but it will never eradicate the risk because they are virtually required in many sicknesses.

Fact: There are many sicknesses where they do still work. What do we do, let the illnesses run rampant? Let those people suffer and the generational mutations increase exponentially?

We're affecting natural selection, yes, but we're also impacting the natural progression. Here's the thing, on a global scale, microbiotics have a viturally infinite supply of resources. By killing those which we can, we're not making it more favorable for the other more stronger strains, they do not compete any more than you compete with me or some random guy in Zimbabwe or Belgium in whether or not we get to masturbate this evening.

Outbreaks that do occur, whether we have useful antibiotics or not, their primary cause is close human proximity borne of overcrowding.

You morons, cousins of Jenny McArthy, seem to fear modern medicine as if its creating a superbug. The irony is, if it weren't for modern medicines, we'd already be experiencing many more superbugs within our own lifetimes.

Look at things like HIV/AIDS. Although viral, pretty damned resilient and contagious without man's influence.

Look at the great plagues of the recorded past. Something mankind can hardly deal with on the local level. These things have occurred and had nothing to do with antibiotics.

I say, let science do what it can, when and if it fails, we can cry a moment and then move on. What else can we do, legislate population density, controlled breeding? Sit around and spread gloom and doom predictions that eerily resemble the more queer conspiracy stories out there. Yeah, you people sure have your heads screwed on straight.

Srinivasan added that pharmaceutical companies are at least partially to blame for this problem, saying that they have neglected the development of new and more sophisticated antibiotics that could keep up with bacterial resistance because 'there's not much money to be made' in this field.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to the first society with a serious, widespread problem because at the point at which the question becomes profit versus immediate survival of the species, it may finally provide the impetus we need to stop putting corporations and business at the center of our lives.

CPT Ethanolic:Shedim: They've seen this coming for a few years now. The problem is that there genuinely isn't anything left that can serve as a substitute that isn't also toxic to humans. You could use silver ions like they do in wound dressings if you're okay with inconclusive stuides, looking like a Smurf and potential renal failure, and copper works really well as a surface antibacterial but you can't exactly introduce that into the body in quantities that wouldn't also be cytotoxic.

We need another seriously major leap in molecular biology to get past this.

Bacteriophages with frickin' laser beams.

GOD DAMN YOU ... I knew I should have looked before posting.What's old is new again.Phages will come back and do a BETTER job.FFS they are the only working treatment for a number of things already.

omeganuepsilon:HindiDiscoMonster: omeganuepsilon: I like how he makes it sound like a problem we caused ourselves, like we should have never used antibiotics in the first place, that it was a mistake to save those lives and improve the quality of life for others.

Comes off as someone who really shouldn't be in medicine.

not every sickness needs an antibiotic.only germophobes think that is the case.

Many do. Your point? It's not a case where some cases contribute to resistance, they ALL do.

thurstonxhowell: omeganuepsilon: I like how he makes it sound like a problem we caused ourselves, like we should have never used antibiotics in the first place, that it was a mistake to save those lives and improve the quality of life for others.

Comes off as someone who really shouldn't be in medicine.

Fact: If someone tells you not to stick your hand in the fire because it will burn you, it is because he hates fire and thinks that it was a mistake to ever start eating cooked food.

non sequitur/and borderline lunacySee above. Raising resistances by use of antibiotics is inevitable, hell, it's inevitable without artificiial antibiotics, we produce them ourselves.

Yes, we could try to focus on shifting their use to more needful cases, lower the potential impact, but it will never eradicate the risk because they are virtually required in many sicknesses.

Fact: There are many sicknesses where they do still work. What do we do, let the illnesses run rampant? Let those people suffer and the generational mutations increase exponentially?

We're affecting natural selection, yes, but we're also impacting the natural progression. Here's the thing, on a global scale, microbiotics have a viturally infinite supply of resources. By killing those which we can, we're not making it more favorable for the other more stronger strains, they do not compete any more than you compete with me or some random guy in Zimbabwe or Belgium in whether or not we get to masturbate this evening.

Outbreaks tha ...

AIDS is not very contagious. It can't be passed thru incidental contact.

foo monkey:unyon: foo monkey: I had a MRSA infection on my balls. Left nutsack swelled up like a playground kickball, full of blood and puss.

Now farkied as "Puss Balls". I hope you're pleased with yourself.

I had a second one on my buttcrack. Went to an infectious disease specialist and did a full body detox. Hibicleanse and antibiotic ointment in my nose. Clean for two years. Yay for NYC subways!!

I had an infected hair follicle right in my inner thigh, right where it meets the groin, so I feel your pain. Those things are nasty little mega-zits. The doc gave me some sulfa drugs and hibicleanse to clear it up.